So just to clarify, I don't need to buy a subscription for the Topfield thing or plug it into the phone line or Internet? I can enter my own times if they don't provide a free service guide?
Also, can I pull the shows off of this thing onto my computer? I assume it does since the pdf brochure lists the recording formats and a usb2 connection. I just wanted a confirmation from someone if possible.
Otherwise, thank you. If it does what I originally posted about, it looks like just the thing that I might want to look at. Like I said, I don't want to deal with the cost and hassle of building a computer and having to run through the bullshit of installing mythTV. Maybe if it was a basically one-button install process, I would think differently, but it's not even at a 1.0 release, so there's always a gotcha somewhere (such as hardware compatibility) that takes hours to solve. And even then, there are things that happen even when it's beyond a stable release.
It looks like this thing has controls on the box itself, too, unlike tivo where you need the remote or you're sunk. I learned a long time ago to buy things that you can work fully from the front control panel, like a vcr or tv that has menu controls on the front panel, because you will inevitably misplace the remote and want to set something up but can't without the remote.
One last question, are these available anywhere in the US (by that I mean, not internationally shipped)? All that are available here in stores are tivo boxes, which sucks ass.
OK, so does anybody actually know of a device that's basically just the equivalent of a vcr with a hard drive? Sure, having the super duper tv guide on the tivo is cool, but it's not $15 a month cool.
What I would ideally like is just something that I can set my own programs for, just like a vcr, and it records them. Then, I can watch them later; just like a vcr, except with a hard drive. I can set the time on my own, thank you very much, and set up my own recording times. If the tivo box allowed me to do that without having to pay their stupid subscription fee, then I would have bought one already. Sure, I wouldn't have their tv guide and preference matching and all that fancy shit, but I really don't care. If the tivo box would just let me set some start and end times to record, they would have made some money off of me.
And please don't say mythTV. Sure, it's nice and cool and open source and teh shizit and all that, but if I could just buy a ready-made box with a decent small remote for ~$250 or less, that would be great. I don't want to spend over $500 for a computer that I have to do a bunch of install crap on (and possibly have to build), and then not have a decent remote control for it; and $500 is the lowest realistic amount for a computer that can handle the video feeds decently. No, a remote keyboard isn't an option since that's another $50 at least just for that and it's big and clunky and looks weird sitting in your living room. All I want is a box that works like a vcr, but records to a hard drive, and that's small and just sits on top of my tv and has a normal remote. No big computer boxes please.
So, does anybody actually know of such a device? They sure don't exist at best buy. All they have is tivo and tivo clones. Somebody help me.
First of all, file formats shouldn't even be intellectual property. That's like saying the shape of my water bucket is somehow intellectual property. The program that manipulates the file can be copyrighted, and that's understandable, but I fail to see how the file format itself can be intellectual property.
Second of all, I reference the Massachusettes vs Microsoft mess as a counterargument. Undocumented file formats cause more people more harm than good. You put your data into the trust of one organization that has sole control over the file format and sole program that can read it decently. Sure people could reverse engineer or whatever, but no business is going to trust the reverse engineering for important enough documents. They'll stick with the program that is made by the only organization that actually knows how to program for that format, and get fucked by the company with outrageous license terms and fees in the process. Even then, your not fully protected, because, hey, no business is actually responsible for any bugs that are in their program. Yes, I know, businesses actually having to produce bug-free code is an impossible thing to implement and a detriment to FOSS software (I'm a software developer myself), but that only underscores how important it is that file formats can be read by lots of programs without having to get permission. If one fucks it up, maybe another one can retrieve it. It doesn't even have to be a bug in the program that mangled a file. Just see all of the stories about how newer versions of Office can't read old Office documents, and OpenOffice can perfectly. I doubt a law is the right answer, but neither is being able to have a file format be intellectual property.
'These data always have been available in court files, but putting the pieces together was so expensive no one did it. Now, it's on the U.S. federal judiciary's Web site. Mr. Upchurch and his two employees download dockets, key information into a database and push a button so their software generates detailed reports.'
You know, I highly doubt that any lawyer worth his salt that was involved in patent litigation didn't at least know what jurisdictions were more favorable to patent litigation than others. Maybe not with the clarity this software allows (individual judges), but I still don't see how 'too much information is a bad thing' in this case. It just seems like more of the same. Sure, I guess now you can request a certain judge, but the other side can use the software as well and request a different judge. It seems to me that the argument works both ways.
While not all-inclusive, let's just kill as much of it as we can right now (meaning I don't remember the rest and don't care to look them up)...
Man, imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.
I, for one, welcome our new iPod nano overlords.
In Soviet Russia, iPod nanos you.
OR
In Soviet Russia, nano iPods you.
1) Nanoize the iPod.
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
And so on and so on...
I've heard the exact opposite. I read something a long time ago (so I don't remember the link) talking about how that was the original intention, but with the actual launch costs of a shuttle, it is much more cost-effective to just build a new one and replace the failing one. This is also true for satellites near the end of their life. There's no reason for a company or the government to spend all of that money on a shuttle flight when they can just replace the old satellite with a new one for a lot cheaper and have newer technology at the same time. It just isn't worth holding on to the old one.
The only satellite that I know of that has actually been maintained by the shuttle is the Hubble telescope, so there's the one exception I guess.
So what you are saying is that you underestimated the amount of traffic that your routers would have to handle? Boo hoo. I payed $55 for month's use of a 4Mbps down and 350kbps(?) up (not quite sure of the actual up speed) connection and expect to have it. I should be able to load it with bittorrent traffic and whatever other traffic I want that maxes out my connection for the entire month.
Illegal or not. Now, let me qualify that. ISP's shouldn't care what I transfer, until otherwise notified by the appropriate authority that I am downloading movies or whatnot. Then, and only until then, should it be their prerogative to do something about it. (The whole common carrier thing.)
It also behooves the ISP's to take this position themselves, as otherwise it opens them up to whole worlds of liability. Copyright holders will want the ISP's to spend money in a futile effort to try and stop copyright infringement. This would entail spending money on buying and supporting equipment to monitor traffic, which I would imagine would not be too cheap considering the processing power needed to even start such an initiative given the amount of traffic flowing around.
First you have to be able to identify types of traffic (i.e., bittorrent), and have enough data to make sure that you can identify it properly. Then, you have to be able to decide if the traffic is legitmate or not, which would entail keeping an ever-changing list of torrent files and whatnot to be able to identify the traffic as illegal. Also, where do you get these lists? Is it your responsibility to go out and find these lists, thereby increasing your costs to maintain staff and additional equipment to do this? Is it something that copyright holders send you? What if they are wrong and you cut off legitimate traffic? Lawsuit, here we come. Now, let's start adding in other p2p networks and all of the equipment and maintenance that that would take. And this is even before privacy implications start to come in to play. Oh yeah, and if bittorrent or a derivative protocol ever start using encryption and becomes popular, all of that effort is now wasted. What are you going to do, start doing man-in-the-middle attacks to encrypted connections, and adding more processing power and cost to decrypt the connections to be able to monitor them? And if anyone finds out, and they will, hello lawsuit #2.
Man, buying another router or two doesn't sound so bad anymore.
The point is, people have payed for a month's worth use of whatever connection they have. If the overbooking assumptions on the neighborhood routers and pipes are not correct, then those assumptions need to change. The cost of any other solution is much higher. I guess there's always the old rate hike that could be used, but that still doesn't change the fact that the month's use of that connection was paid for and so it is that customer's right to use it full bore for the entire month if they want to, because that is what they purchased.
My grandmother actually has a comptometer that I played with when I was younger. I haven't used it in years, but it was funky how it actually worked mechanically given that I only knew electronic calculators. You had to do some funny stuff for subtracting, I think you had to hold a lever down and use a number one less than what you were subtracting, but it worked.
Well, I mistyped proton for photon, and yes, I do know that protons can escape from stars. I was making a joke and thought that the "tons of gravity" phrase would give it away. Obviously, "tons of gravity" doesn't make any sense as a phrase. Gravity has no weight in that sense as weight is the effect of gravity on an object with mass. And yes, I have heard of solar wind.
While that may be true, the site does offer some interesting pieces of evidence that go against what some people consider the absolute truth of evolution. It's always interesting to me that some people hold evolution in such high regard and accuse people who hold to a different theory of being the ones not considering alternatives, especially when there is valid evidence seemingly against evolution. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, just that there is valid evidence on both sides and that the evidence that backs up a non-evolutionary theory seems to not be heard as much even if it is just as valid as evidence pointing towards evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
So just to clarify, I don't need to buy a subscription for the Topfield thing or plug it into the phone line or Internet? I can enter my own times if they don't provide a free service guide?
Also, can I pull the shows off of this thing onto my computer? I assume it does since the pdf brochure lists the recording formats and a usb2 connection. I just wanted a confirmation from someone if possible.
Otherwise, thank you. If it does what I originally posted about, it looks like just the thing that I might want to look at. Like I said, I don't want to deal with the cost and hassle of building a computer and having to run through the bullshit of installing mythTV. Maybe if it was a basically one-button install process, I would think differently, but it's not even at a 1.0 release, so there's always a gotcha somewhere (such as hardware compatibility) that takes hours to solve. And even then, there are things that happen even when it's beyond a stable release.
It looks like this thing has controls on the box itself, too, unlike tivo where you need the remote or you're sunk. I learned a long time ago to buy things that you can work fully from the front control panel, like a vcr or tv that has menu controls on the front panel, because you will inevitably misplace the remote and want to set something up but can't without the remote.
One last question, are these available anywhere in the US (by that I mean, not internationally shipped)? All that are available here in stores are tivo boxes, which sucks ass.
OK, so does anybody actually know of a device that's basically just the equivalent of a vcr with a hard drive? Sure, having the super duper tv guide on the tivo is cool, but it's not $15 a month cool.
What I would ideally like is just something that I can set my own programs for, just like a vcr, and it records them. Then, I can watch them later; just like a vcr, except with a hard drive. I can set the time on my own, thank you very much, and set up my own recording times. If the tivo box allowed me to do that without having to pay their stupid subscription fee, then I would have bought one already. Sure, I wouldn't have their tv guide and preference matching and all that fancy shit, but I really don't care. If the tivo box would just let me set some start and end times to record, they would have made some money off of me.
And please don't say mythTV. Sure, it's nice and cool and open source and teh shizit and all that, but if I could just buy a ready-made box with a decent small remote for ~$250 or less, that would be great. I don't want to spend over $500 for a computer that I have to do a bunch of install crap on (and possibly have to build), and then not have a decent remote control for it; and $500 is the lowest realistic amount for a computer that can handle the video feeds decently. No, a remote keyboard isn't an option since that's another $50 at least just for that and it's big and clunky and looks weird sitting in your living room. All I want is a box that works like a vcr, but records to a hard drive, and that's small and just sits on top of my tv and has a normal remote. No big computer boxes please.
So, does anybody actually know of such a device? They sure don't exist at best buy. All they have is tivo and tivo clones. Somebody help me.
First of all, file formats shouldn't even be intellectual property. That's like saying the shape of my water bucket is somehow intellectual property. The program that manipulates the file can be copyrighted, and that's understandable, but I fail to see how the file format itself can be intellectual property.
Second of all, I reference the Massachusettes vs Microsoft mess as a counterargument. Undocumented file formats cause more people more harm than good. You put your data into the trust of one organization that has sole control over the file format and sole program that can read it decently. Sure people could reverse engineer or whatever, but no business is going to trust the reverse engineering for important enough documents. They'll stick with the program that is made by the only organization that actually knows how to program for that format, and get fucked by the company with outrageous license terms and fees in the process. Even then, your not fully protected, because, hey, no business is actually responsible for any bugs that are in their program. Yes, I know, businesses actually having to produce bug-free code is an impossible thing to implement and a detriment to FOSS software (I'm a software developer myself), but that only underscores how important it is that file formats can be read by lots of programs without having to get permission. If one fucks it up, maybe another one can retrieve it. It doesn't even have to be a bug in the program that mangled a file. Just see all of the stories about how newer versions of Office can't read old Office documents, and OpenOffice can perfectly. I doubt a law is the right answer, but neither is being able to have a file format be intellectual property.
Only if that choice is how big of dick you want shoved up your ass.
'These data always have been available in court files, but putting the pieces together was so expensive no one did it. Now, it's on the U.S. federal judiciary's Web site. Mr. Upchurch and his two employees download dockets, key information into a database and push a button so their software generates detailed reports.'
You know, I highly doubt that any lawyer worth his salt that was involved in patent litigation didn't at least know what jurisdictions were more favorable to patent litigation than others. Maybe not with the clarity this software allows (individual judges), but I still don't see how 'too much information is a bad thing' in this case. It just seems like more of the same. Sure, I guess now you can request a certain judge, but the other side can use the software as well and request a different judge. It seems to me that the argument works both ways.
I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot.
In Soviet Russia, trolls fuck you.
Sorry, it was right there.
He's responding to the guy's signature.
Let's try again
____________________________
While not all-inclusive, let's just kill as much of it as we can right now (meaning I don't remember the rest and don't care to look them up)...
Man, imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.
I, for one, welcome our new iPod nano overlords.
In Soviet Russia, iPod nanos you.
OR
In Soviet Russia, nano iPods you.
1) Nanoize the iPod.
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
And so on and so on...
While not all-inclusive, let's just kill as much of it as we can right now (meaning I don't remember the rest and don't care to look them up)... Man, imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. I, for one, welcome our new iPod nano overlords. In Soviet Russia, iPod nanos you. OR In Soviet Russia, nano iPods you. 1) Nanoize the iPod. 2) ??? 3) Profit!!! And so on and so on...
Holy good fuck, did you just walk through a cow's stomach tripped out on acid and fritos?
I've heard the exact opposite. I read something a long time ago (so I don't remember the link) talking about how that was the original intention, but with the actual launch costs of a shuttle, it is much more cost-effective to just build a new one and replace the failing one. This is also true for satellites near the end of their life. There's no reason for a company or the government to spend all of that money on a shuttle flight when they can just replace the old satellite with a new one for a lot cheaper and have newer technology at the same time. It just isn't worth holding on to the old one.
The only satellite that I know of that has actually been maintained by the shuttle is the Hubble telescope, so there's the one exception I guess.
So what you are saying is that you underestimated the amount of traffic that your routers would have to handle? Boo hoo. I payed $55 for month's use of a 4Mbps down and 350kbps(?) up (not quite sure of the actual up speed) connection and expect to have it. I should be able to load it with bittorrent traffic and whatever other traffic I want that maxes out my connection for the entire month.
Illegal or not. Now, let me qualify that. ISP's shouldn't care what I transfer, until otherwise notified by the appropriate authority that I am downloading movies or whatnot. Then, and only until then, should it be their prerogative to do something about it. (The whole common carrier thing.)
It also behooves the ISP's to take this position themselves, as otherwise it opens them up to whole worlds of liability. Copyright holders will want the ISP's to spend money in a futile effort to try and stop copyright infringement. This would entail spending money on buying and supporting equipment to monitor traffic, which I would imagine would not be too cheap considering the processing power needed to even start such an initiative given the amount of traffic flowing around.
First you have to be able to identify types of traffic (i.e., bittorrent), and have enough data to make sure that you can identify it properly. Then, you have to be able to decide if the traffic is legitmate or not, which would entail keeping an ever-changing list of torrent files and whatnot to be able to identify the traffic as illegal. Also, where do you get these lists? Is it your responsibility to go out and find these lists, thereby increasing your costs to maintain staff and additional equipment to do this? Is it something that copyright holders send you? What if they are wrong and you cut off legitimate traffic? Lawsuit, here we come. Now, let's start adding in other p2p networks and all of the equipment and maintenance that that would take. And this is even before privacy implications start to come in to play. Oh yeah, and if bittorrent or a derivative protocol ever start using encryption and becomes popular, all of that effort is now wasted. What are you going to do, start doing man-in-the-middle attacks to encrypted connections, and adding more processing power and cost to decrypt the connections to be able to monitor them? And if anyone finds out, and they will, hello lawsuit #2.
Man, buying another router or two doesn't sound so bad anymore.
The point is, people have payed for a month's worth use of whatever connection they have. If the overbooking assumptions on the neighborhood routers and pipes are not correct, then those assumptions need to change. The cost of any other solution is much higher. I guess there's always the old rate hike that could be used, but that still doesn't change the fact that the month's use of that connection was paid for and so it is that customer's right to use it full bore for the entire month if they want to, because that is what they purchased.
My grandmother actually has a comptometer that I played with when I was younger. I haven't used it in years, but it was funky how it actually worked mechanically given that I only knew electronic calculators. You had to do some funny stuff for subtracting, I think you had to hold a lever down and use a number one less than what you were subtracting, but it worked.
Well, I mistyped proton for photon, and yes, I do know that protons can escape from stars. I was making a joke and thought that the "tons of gravity" phrase would give it away. Obviously, "tons of gravity" doesn't make any sense as a phrase. Gravity has no weight in that sense as weight is the effect of gravity on an object with mass. And yes, I have heard of solar wind.
Protons can't escape from stars, silly. All the tons of gravity would get in the way.
If you say that imposing values on another is wrong, isn't that imposing what you think is wrong on the parent poster? Just a thought.
While that may be true, the site does offer some interesting pieces of evidence that go against what some people consider the absolute truth of evolution. It's always interesting to me that some people hold evolution in such high regard and accuse people who hold to a different theory of being the ones not considering alternatives, especially when there is valid evidence seemingly against evolution. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, just that there is valid evidence on both sides and that the evidence that backs up a non-evolutionary theory seems to not be heard as much even if it is just as valid as evidence pointing towards evolution.